IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume X, Issue 607, 1 September 1858, Page 3

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

NEW ZEALAND LOAN*

Sir J. TRBLAWNY,(intheHousepf Commons,) on an early day in May, begged to inquire of theSecretary for the • colonies, whether, he had received any inforrii'atiori contradicting the statement made to .the late New Zealand Loan (guarantee Cdmrnittee; that the ' idea ' of accepting £200,000 instead rof< £500,000 was distinctly negatived by the House of Kepresentatives; and whether it was not,in fact true that the case ot only obtaining, £200,000 was carefully provided for in a formal resolution? „_._,-.: , „ Lord Stanley said he would for the sake ot convenience take the second part of the hon. member's question first.: He had to state that he had examined the minutes of the House, of Representatives, and he found that a- resolution was passed, as the hon. member stated, provid-; ing for the contingency of a loan ;of only £200 000 being, granted. That resolution bore date the 2nd of July, 1856. In answer to ; the first part of the question, he begged to observe that the hon. gentleman had not quoted with perfect accuracy the witness to, whose evidence he referred. The witness said the question of a. loan limited to £200,000 was raised in the legist lature^ and was distinctly negatived.5 He need not remind'^ him that under - the New Zealand; constitution' there were two houses,* and it i was ■ possible that; although resolutions were carried': in the' House of Representatives, they might have been negatived in the other House; but at - the same time he was-bound to say that he could not find in the records ; of .the colonial-office any trace, of such a. proceeding. He.found that the resolution did pass the House of Representatives, but he could not trace what became of it afterwards.

On a subsequent day, Sir J. Trelawny called the attention of the House to certain passages in;the evidence given by one of the witnesses before the New Zealand Loan (£500,000) Guarantee Committee, and to compare the same with records of the proceedings of the New Zealand House of Assembly, in which the witness referred, to took part. The hon. baronet ,took occasion. to say that in the last session of Parliament there had been a proposal to guarantee a loan of £500,000 to New Zealand, and that the complaint which he had to urge in reference to that proceeding was, that several hon. gentlemen had stated in their speeches that they had been influenced as to the course with respect to it, which they deemed it their duty to take by evidence which was palpably contrary to the truth.. The evidence: to which he alluded, was that given before the committee by Mr. *TI. Sewell, -■. who had distinctly stated that the colony in question would not accept a loan of less than £200,000, notwithstanding that upon the 2nd of July, 1856, a resolution had been passed in the House of Representatives in New Zealand, declaring its readiness to accept that amount. Now, that was a point upon which he thought some explanation ought -to be given to theF House.! But there-was also another point connected with the colony, >to which; he; wished to direct its attention. >He alluded to certain "dealings with the natives - for the sale-of their lands, and to the manner in which recent contracts: made with them with respect to schools and hospitals by a Government officer, had been carried into effect.1 He. referred, in particular to the purchase by Mr. Mantell of 30,000,000 of. acres for £5,000. He (Sir J. Trelawny) had been informed that if actions of ejectment were brought the grants which had been made of land in New Zealand would prove to be totally valueless. A petition from the natives, written in the Maori language, had been sent over, asking that justice might be done them, and it behoved this country to see that our reputation for good faith was maintained intact in our dealings with all people irrespective of race or colour. Lord Stanley said he would take the two questions raised by the hon. gentleman in- the order in which he had mentioned them. With respect to the evidence of Mr. Sewell before the New Zealand Land Committee, he could assure the hon. baronet that no one could be more surprised than he (Lord Stanley) was at the apparent discrepancy between the evidence of Mr. Sewell. and the fact as it appeared upon the,. official records of the local legislature. The circumstances were these. The House would remember that last year it was asked to give the Imperial guarantee for a loan of £500,000 for. purposes' connected with the colony of New Zealand. Of that sum £200,000 was to be guaranteed for one purpose and £300,000 for another, and the question was raised in the committee whether in the event of Parliament being unwilling to sanction a guarantee for the whole amount and a guarantee for £200,000 was offered, it would be accepted by the legislature of the colony. To that question Mr. Sewell replied that it would'not be accepted, and that that question had been raised in the colonial legislature, and was distinctly negatived. Upon the face of the resolution passed by the legislature, it undoubtedly did appear that they had acceded to the proposition which Mr. Sewell stated they would not accept. The resolution, however, consisted of two parts, the first of which contained the acceptance of a guarantee upon a limited sum, and the latter portion rendered it wholly nugatory. The resolution had been originally brought forward by an opponent of the local government, who for some reason did not choose to meet it by a direct negative, but preferred to meet it by an amendment which, for all practical purposes, neutralised the meaning of the original resolution, and in that shape it was passed. That the resolution was looked upon as a dead letter might be inferred from the fact that it appeared never to have been submitted to the Upper House of legislature in the colony. Mr. Sewell's explanation was,: that he based his statement to the committee upon the fact of which it appeared that they agreed to accept a guarantee for the smaller sum, yet tho resolution was rendered ■ virtually null by the subsequent addition. Mr. Sewell acknowledged that in one respect he had been inaccurate. He had told the committee that tlie proposition to accept a guarantee for a smaller sum had been distinctly negatived. That statement certainly went further than was warranted by the facts, but allowance must be j

made for the position , of. a gentleman whose words -ftere taken down at the moment he spoke. The inaccuracy was nothing but a verbal inaccuracy, and did not in any way tend to mislead the committee. Mr. Sewell further-stated that although under, the terms of the resolution if the £200,000 was guaranteed by the Imperial iGovernment, the colonial legislature might proceed to raise the £300,000; yet practically that was impossible, because the local government, jhaying a;majority in the legislature, would not it. He thought that the explanation would satisfy the House that the committee had not been, misled by the statement of Mr. iSewell. The honorable baronet had referred to .another case. He believed that 30,000,000 of ;acres were purchased by Mr. Mantell for £5000 ■on behalf of'the Government. That, of course, jseemed &> very inadequate price, but it might have represented the value of the land to the holders. He had looked into the papers connected with this subject,and had not discovered j anything in the nature of a contract between jMr. Mantell and the natives as to the expenditure of money on their behalf. Mr. Mantell, J however, stated in general terms that hospital land school accommodation would be provided. iThe power of making such provision had been taken out of the hands of the Government of jthis country by the transfer of the control of the j waste lands- from the Imperial to the Colonial j Government. There was at present at the disposal of. the Government a sum of £7000 a year ;for hospital arid school accommodation. He could not hold out any hope that that sum would be increased. He regretted to say that , the only, answer, he had to give to the hon. baronet was that the obligations of the Imperial j Government, whatever they were, had been ; transferred to the colonial legislature. Mr. Labouchere, havirig.been chairman of the committee, wished to observe that they were not misled by Mr. Sewell's evidence. The commit- ; tee clearly perceived that a guarantee for a less I sum than £500,000 would not be accepted. He was perfectly satisfied-with the explanation of Mr. Sewell, whose character and ability were unimpeachable. He regretted that Mr. Sewell did not state to the committee the fact that a resolution was passed by the colonial legislature respecting him. The latter part of that resolution stultified the first part, and the resolution, in fact, amounted to nothing. It would be inexpedient on the present occasion to enter upon r the general question of the guaranteeing of loans to the colonies, and therefore he would simply say that; in his opinion, as a general rule, no such guarantees ought to be given; but, in exceptional and justifiable cases such as the present, he thought that nothing could be more beneficial to a colony and to the mother country than such, guarantees.

Mr. Adderley defended the character of Mr. Sewell, and hoped that in future the hon. baronet would be more cautious how he attacked in that House absent persons. He,;from his acquaintance with the affairs of the colony, was prepared to state distinctly that the House had not been I deceived. The fact of the case were that there were two parties in the colony, one of which was anxious for exoneration * from one liability, and the oilier from exoneration from another liability, and one exoneration would not have been assented to unless the other were conceded also. Now, what were the facts of the case? Why, when Mr. Fitzherbert moved a resolution that if the large sum could not be obtained the smaller sum be accepted, Mr. Sewell was absent from the House, and an inferior member of the government expressed his acquiescence in that proposal. Upon the return of Mr. Sewell, finding what had been done without his instructions, he moved the addition of a rider which entirely stultified the original resolution, and which was agreed to. Although, therefore, Mr. Sewell might not have been literally he was substantially correct, and he was fully- convinced that Mr. Sewell must stand acquitted of any charge impugning his character as a man of honour. (Hear, hear.) Mr. C. Fortescue concurred in the opinion that one scheme would not have been agreed to without the other. As regarded the demand that a larger sum should be reserved for native purposes, the fact was that the parliamentary government of the colony had so encroached upon the province of the home Government-that not only had the Crown given up its power to increase that sum directly, but it was not able to do so indirectly. Sir H. Willoughby considered that the explanations which had; been given had been of a satisfactory character, but they might have been made before; For his own part, he trusted that the: House would always be very cautious before guaranteeing a loan to any colony. Mr. W. Williams thought that the principle of guaranteeing loans to colonies ought to be entirely repudiated, for if a loan were guaran-. teed to one colony and refused to others great discontent Avould be created.

After a few words in explanation from Sir J. Trelawny, in which he stated his willingness to believe that Mr. Sewell had not been influenced by any desire to deceive, the subject dropped.